Why do you call Windows® a toy, friend? A hammer is used for pounding nails; a saw, for cutting wood. There are different tools for different tasks. While Linux has shown promise as a low-cost server platform, it is very poor for many other tasks that are part of a business environment. Even Windows® Me is a tool in its own right: it is a tool that allows the user -- who may or may not be computer-savvy -- to send email, surf the WWW, compose documents, and play games. And even when the user plays games, it is the game that is the toy, not the operating system.
A common denominator in poorly written trolls such as this is the reference to "Windows". No discerning between 3.1 or 2000 Server; to the average Linux flameboy, it's all just "Windows". Sadly, ignorance of this type will be your downfall. Nonspecific xenophobia is characteristic of many violent, short-lived social movements. Nazism, for example. If you insist on criticizing my company's products, why not at least accurately specify which you are referring to? Even the difference between Windows® 2000 Professional and Server is significant. They are different operating systems intended for vastly different purposes. The differences are as clear as those between Linux and this ominous, uncertain "Windows" you describe.
Another flaw in your people's reasoning is your stubborn insistence that no other perspectives besides your own can possibly exist. From the perspective of a corporate executive, Linux is the "toy": it has a poor user interface; it does not support business standards (The fact that we are responsible for said paradigms becoming "standard" is irrelevant. Microsoft has gotten where it is by providing quality software and through smart business practice.); it has no real support; it is provided by at least a dozen "distributors" whose motivations are are often very different; it does not fit comfortably within existing enterprise computing environments. The closest thing Linux has to a business operating system is Red Hat's distribution, which, sadly, is bloated, buggy, and has an uncertain future.
Finally, I would like to say that you do have a choice. Any other belief is a delusion. Users have always had a choice, and Microsoft would not have survived the late Eighties (when Apple and IBM held marketshares comparable to our current so-called "monopoly") if this were not true. Linux has been a "hot topic" in the computing industry for over a year, and has received support from inummerable corporate juggernauts. The reason it has not succeeded is that it, at the moment, lacks what it takes to satisfy business computing needs both on the desktop and in the server room. It really is quite pathetic; if Linux's fifteen minutes of fame had come but two years later, it may have been mature enough to "make it". But Linux has proven itself to be yet another come-and-go, drop-in-the-bucket fad in the Dot-Com age. So the Enterprise returns to the tried and true solutions which have worked for as long as the modern business computing envirnonment has existed: Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Hewlett Packard, et al. Even Apple has more of a place in this world than Linux does.
This may seem unusual, by I have a technical question. How is it that a spammer can target an entire ISP or web-mail provider? One of the biggest complaints about our popular Hotmail® service(sorry, the site is currently down; apparently the NT5 migration wasn't a complete success, but a restaffing will take care of that, eh?) is the spam which appears to be received by every single mailbox. Those of you with multiple accounts know what I'm talking about! On Hotmail®, at least, there are instances when I log into the several personal accounts I keep, only to discover that each has an indentical "DO YOU WANT TEEN SEX?" spam message in its Inbox. Very disturbing!
I know that this messageboard is a haven for "script kids" and other hacking types, so I'm sure one of you knows the answer. I would like to integrate knowlegde of such hacker practices into our MCSE+Internet certification, but the program's technical director is stumped. Any clues?
For your information, friend, "NT" stands for "No Titties". This was a reaction against the Titty Virus of 1992, which took advantage of certain weaknesses in the non-blocking disk I/O in Windows® 3.1. This virus corrupted the MBR and then caused the user's terminal to be foully flooded with a barrage of bouncing breasts, luciously lactating and perniciously prompting mass masturbation. "NT" was a bold proclamation that we had overcome these design issues and were ready to take on take on the enterprise computing market -- a market we practically created, I might add. So please, friend, kill yourself in a timely manner, to save we loyal Slashdot readers the horror of reading another of your idiotic posts. Thank you.
I guess they can't write english any better than they can write C++.
Who are you to criticize, friend? Only God can judge, and being God, I judge you to be a moron.
Slashdot Mirror
A common denominator in poorly written trolls such as this is the reference to "Windows". No discerning between 3.1 or 2000 Server; to the average Linux flameboy, it's all just "Windows". Sadly, ignorance of this type will be your downfall. Nonspecific xenophobia is characteristic of many violent, short-lived social movements. Nazism, for example. If you insist on criticizing my company's products, why not at least accurately specify which you are referring to? Even the difference between Windows® 2000 Professional and Server is significant. They are different operating systems intended for vastly different purposes. The differences are as clear as those between Linux and this ominous, uncertain "Windows" you describe.
Another flaw in your people's reasoning is your stubborn insistence that no other perspectives besides your own can possibly exist. From the perspective of a corporate executive, Linux is the "toy": it has a poor user interface; it does not support business standards (The fact that we are responsible for said paradigms becoming "standard" is irrelevant. Microsoft has gotten where it is by providing quality software and through smart business practice.); it has no real support; it is provided by at least a dozen "distributors" whose motivations are are often very different; it does not fit comfortably within existing enterprise computing environments. The closest thing Linux has to a business operating system is Red Hat's distribution, which, sadly, is bloated, buggy, and has an uncertain future.
Finally, I would like to say that you do have a choice. Any other belief is a delusion. Users have always had a choice, and Microsoft would not have survived the late Eighties (when Apple and IBM held marketshares comparable to our current so-called "monopoly") if this were not true. Linux has been a "hot topic" in the computing industry for over a year, and has received support from inummerable corporate juggernauts. The reason it has not succeeded is that it, at the moment, lacks what it takes to satisfy business computing needs both on the desktop and in the server room. It really is quite pathetic; if Linux's fifteen minutes of fame had come but two years later, it may have been mature enough to "make it". But Linux has proven itself to be yet another come-and-go, drop-in-the-bucket fad in the Dot-Com age. So the Enterprise returns to the tried and true solutions which have worked for as long as the modern business computing envirnonment has existed: Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, IBM, Hewlett Packard, et al. Even Apple has more of a place in this world than Linux does.
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
I know that this messageboard is a haven for "script kids" and other hacking types, so I'm sure one of you knows the answer. I would like to integrate knowlegde of such hacker practices into our MCSE+Internet certification, but the program's technical director is stumped. Any clues?
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
For your information, friend, "NT" stands for "No Titties". This was a reaction against the Titty Virus of 1992, which took advantage of certain weaknesses in the non-blocking disk I/O in Windows® 3.1. This virus corrupted the MBR and then caused the user's terminal to be foully flooded with a barrage of bouncing breasts, luciously lactating and perniciously prompting mass masturbation. "NT" was a bold proclamation that we had overcome these design issues and were ready to take on take on the enterprise computing market -- a market we practically created, I might add. So please, friend, kill yourself in a timely manner, to save we loyal Slashdot readers the horror of reading another of your idiotic posts. Thank you.
Who are you to criticize, friend? Only God can judge, and being God, I judge you to be a moron.See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
SNIP>>----
Sent: 11 December 2000
From: Bill Fuckin' Gates
To: Larry Ellison
Subject: napster-like file sharing corporate collaboration
Dear Larry,
Will you please share your UNIX password files with me?
Love,
Bill
----<<SNIP
SNIP>>----
Received: 12 December 2000
From: Larry Ellison
To: Bill Fuckin' Gates
Subject: Re: napster-like file sharing corporate collaboration
Dear Bill,
No, fooly.
Larry X. Ellison
Oracle Supreme Supervillain
----<<SNIP
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.
If you had this revelation five years ago, and your name were Scott Adams, you'd be a millionaire! Welcome to the real world!
See you in hell,
Bill Fuckin' Gates®.